memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Aircar
Name If I may ask, was this term actually used? I'm not saying its not, but a quick survey of the usual sources for scripts and transcripts seems to turn up nothing. And there's already a page for hovercar. -- Capricorn (talk) 23:54, May 22, 2014 (UTC) :It seems to me that it was extrapolated from non-canon sources and applied to the vehicles described here, but if the term itself hasn't been used in canon, then perhaps we shouldn't use it. ProfessorTofty (talk) 14:48, May 24, 2014 (UTC) ::Professor Tofty said it how it is. The name "aircar" hasn't actually been used in canon, however I still believe it should be used here, as it's important to me to distinguish the aircar from the hovercar. ::Non-canon sources call it "aircar." It's a term that even though it hasn't been used in canon, is still a "Star Trek" term. Most other sources would call it a "skycar," "flying car" or "spinner," depending on the science fiction franchise. But in Star Trek the term, although never mentioned in canon, is "aircar." ::A hovercar is a near ground car, it can't attain the altitudes of an aircar. Since both vehicle types have been shown in Star Trek, I think it's important to distinguish them, because they are different. Both types of cars have been shown in Star Trek and they are clearly different. One hasn't been named, but in non-canon sources it has. ::To me it's just a question of whether or not they have been shown in Star Trek, which they have. George H.W. Bush has been shown in Star Trek, but to my knowledge, he wasn't named. But I still think Bush needs a page here, as he has been seen. Also the Battle of the Mutara Nebula was shown in , but it was never referred to as such. Nevertheless, I feel the page belongs here. Perhaps in the article I should write something pertaining to the fact that it was never referred to as such? ::--Noah Tall (talk) 00:42, May 25, 2014 (UTC) I'd be more confortable with a generic term rather then an expanded universe term. After all, that's how we do it with species, production sources are acceptable, but in the absence of those we put them on the unnamed humanoids pages rather then adopt the names they may be given in some novel. Which noncanon sources do you mean by the way? It makes a world of difference if these are reference works or noncanon stories. In any case, the note you suggest would definatly be useful imo. Some further concerns; I very much doubt the specifics of what constitutes a hovercar have been discussed in Trek. The low altitude thing might be a wider scifi convention, but that doesn't mean we should take it as fact in absence of evidence. (Desert flyers seem classified as hovercars on MA despite being more like what you'd call aircars btw). Furthermore, some of those into darkness aircars look very similar to the named type of vehicle known as a Jumpship, to the point of seeming like a variant cgi model, and as far as named aircar-like vehicles go, we also know of the existence of Hoppers, Hovercruisers and skimmers. I'm sorry, I think your work on this article is pretty great, but I just think the article raises a few issues. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:27, May 25, 2014 (UTC) ::No need to apologize, I see what you're saying. As for the Desert flyer, they were shown driving near the ground. So that makes sense why they would call it a hovercar. Yeah, I know that the one the healer drove was kind of way up high, but I think that could have been an animation error. Filmation's notorious for that kind of stuff. ::There were a few jumpships flying in the skies in the new film, but none of those are pictured in any of the screenshots in this article. And it's not from reference works, mainly just books and FASA's RPG. But it definitely raises the issue of the higher altitude thing. As far as how it relates to hovercars, I'm not sure, I suppose that is just based on the general hovercar concept. If you examine most sci-fi, hovercars only float a few inches to a few feet above the ground. Skimmers and Hovercruisers would be the same in this regard. Not sure about Hoppers though. Yes, I know this is a Trek wiki only. But this is taken from non-canon Trek in name only, the vehicles are there just not the names. But whatever we do is whatever we do. For now I'll put the note there and we can see what other discussions come forth. ::--Noah Tall (talk) 12:48, May 25, 2014 (UTC) The transparancy offered by the note is certainly a good start. And I have to admit I'm not sure what else to suggest (short of moving this to unnamed Federation starships, which feels nuts). I'd like to get someone else's opinion on this (I'd make a horrible lawyer), but the way I understand the notability rules make naming something for a non-reference-work expanded universe term kinda problematic. Plus there remains the whole issue of how for all we know Federation citizens do call these hovercars, or skimmers or whatever and we've invented a nonexistent distinction. You offer some good observations, but as long as we can only guess that doesn't really help. Oh well, baring any other ideas, this name will probably have to do. At least its a great addition to the wiki. - Capricorn (talk) 21:07, May 25, 2014 (UTC) Redux Can anyone offer a suggestion? Have any of these vehicles been given a name in any background notes? --LauraCC (talk) 19:53, January 27, 2017 (UTC)